Darkest Hour

[Centuur]

I've seen this movie yesterday and I have to say that the French are quite right here...

[RFalvo69]

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil, but let's say than Nolan, again, plays with the concept of "time" in an unique way. The movie intercuts between the soldiers stranded on the beaches, the small fleet of civilians coming to the rescue, and the RAF battling the Luftwaffe. However, as we are clearly told, the land scenes cover one week, the sea ones one day, and the air battles one hour. Nolan, though, intercuts between them like if they were on the same timeline. The effect is disorienting, at the beginning, but the way everything comes together is, IMHO, totally unique.

There is no gore in the movie, but be warned that this is a very hard PG13 (here in Europe we have different rating systems, but the concept is basically the same): the anguish and the tension are relentless, and soldiers die in dire ways. You really don't need blood and flying limbs when certain... things do happen to people.

A word of warning: there are no real characters in the movie, something, I feel, that many people will not like. I think that Nolan cast some recognisable faces just for that reason ("Hey, Kenneth Branagh looks worried! He must be an English high-up or stuff!" "Wait a minute... they are not going to kill Mad Max, do they??) - because the only connection you have is with the actors. Characters are defined by what they do, not by speeches about the wife at home expecting their first baby. The movie can be defined as a single, uninterrupted sequence that never lets go: there is simply no time for sad sing-alongs.

Zimmer's score is fantastic. Let's say that it doesn't "accompany" the movie, but it is an integral part of the soundscape.

Watch it on the biggest screen around. The air battles alone had the whole audience banking...

My vote: 9 out of 10

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I've seen this movie yesterday and I have to say that the French are quite right here...

Has the French made a war movie celebrating the courage and bravery of the English soldiers?

[warspite1]

Well, the French seem to not like the movie....

Total and utter rubbish. Why are some people so stupid? It's like there is an army of people out there just waiting to be offended by someone or something. And its not just the French.

'The French' are angry because Dunkirk neglects them - and if you recall 'the British' were angry because Saving Private Ryan didn't mention their involvement on D-Day.

Hey - here's a novel idea for those people whoever they are - how about growing the hell up?

Saving Private Ryan was set in Normandy - but NEWSFLASH - it was a story about a deeply personal American experience; it was based on a true story and was about a rule that was brought in for US servicemen following the loss of the Sullivan brothers. Sure, the film could've included reference to the British and Canadians, but it didn't and that was no insult - there was just no reason to necessarily include them.

Dunkirk is about the British experience at Dunkirk - especially the sailors who manned the little ships. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces, in the case of Dunkirk (and despite it being a British story being told here) it would have been fitting to make reference to the French out of fairness. But the point is IT DID SO.

To say it neglects the French - when the opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach while the French continue fighting), when it mentions during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and when it mentions at the end of the film that the British wait longer to try and get more French off - is simply false and just looking for trouble.

Pathetic.

Edit: Slightly re-worded to make more readable and to highlight the fact that recently I keep spelling their when I mean there [:(]

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I've seen this movie yesterday and I have to say that the French are quite right here...

I don't know. There is a scene showing French troops holding the perimeter. It is a single one, but it is in the movie.

The movie also shows French troops on the beach being refused access to British ships because "they are for British soldiers only". This briefly after, in a dialogue, it is underlined how Churchill publicly supports the idea that "the fight is not over", but privately "he wants his Army back".

"Dunkirk", as clearly stated, is about the evacuation, and nothing else. It is uninterested about how the Allies put themselves in that situation or who is to blame. However, if you pay attention, you get enough info to understand the overall state of things even outside the main story.

[warspite1]

....and the Russians are calling the Brits cowards

And while we're discussing mindless stupidity perhaps 'the Russians' who say the film celebrates cowardice can clarify how Dunkirk differs from Odessa.

You know, when an army, with its back to the sea and has no way out, gets evacuated so its troops can be used for more important battles to come rather than to populate German prisoner of war camps. How was the evacuation from Dunkirk different?

Of course as we know, these comments have nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with trying to stir up trouble.

[brian brian]

Actually, Dunkirk is just used as a setting for some much deeper themes, such as the anonymous nature of war and the way the individual decisions each have profound ramifications for all the other participants in war. And the way individuals come round to those decisions either quickly or slowly, and the ways those decisions can then be rendered completely irrelevant, perhaps instantly, by random chance, anyway.

Using this movie to get into some sort of national pissing match is a little silly - any battle could be used to explore what this movie is actually exploring. It is slightly unfortunate that because Dunkirk is not well-known at all, any more, the movie will be looked at as telling the "story" of Dunkirk, when it actually does only some of that, and is quite beside the points being made. And with the exception of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, and perhaps Market-Garden, no battle of WWII is known by the public any more, really. It strikes me as a bit of a shame that Nolan picked this battle, with it's implications for relations among Allies, etc., to explore what he explores in the script, rather than some more anonymous battle. Perhaps Dieppe would have worked just the same, though he would not have been able to work a civilian angle in to that one.



I would say there is an existential terror question in the first few minutes that few would notice, save military hardware buffs - if you see a Stuka diving toward you, and you don't have a foxhole ready, do you run towards the Stuka, or away from it?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

....and the Russians are calling the Brits cowards

And while we're discussing mindless stupidity perhaps 'the Russians' who say the film celebrates cowardice can clarify how Dunkirk differs from Odessa.

You know, when an army, with its back to the sea and has no way out, gets evacuated so its troops can be used for more important battles to come rather than to populate German prisoner of war camps. How was the evacuation from Dunkirk different?

Of course as we know, these comments have nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with trying to stir up trouble.

I suspect they never even heard about the evacuation from Odessa.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: brian brian


I would say there is an existential terror question in the first few minutes that few would notice, save military hardware buffs - if you see a Stuka diving toward you, and you don't have a foxhole ready, do you run towards the Stuka, or away from it?

Towards it, but angling it slightly to the side.

Although if it really happened I rather suspect I would be petrified. And then hit the ground at the spot I was standing in.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

....and the Russians are calling the Brits cowards

And while we're discussing mindless stupidity perhaps 'the Russians' who say the film celebrates cowardice can clarify how Dunkirk differs from Odessa.

You know, when an army, with its back to the sea and has no way out, gets evacuated so its troops can be used for more important battles to come rather than to populate German prisoner of war camps. How was the evacuation from Dunkirk different?

Of course as we know, these comments have nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with trying to stir up trouble.

I suspect they never even heard about the evacuation from Odessa.

warspite1

Indeed [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Actually, Dunkirk is just used as a setting for some much deeper themes, such as the anonymous nature of war and the way the individual decisions each have profound ramifications for all the other participants in war. And the way individuals come round to those decisions either quickly or slowly, and the ways those decisions can then be rendered completely irrelevant, perhaps instantly, by random chance, anyway.

Using this movie to get into some sort of national pissing match is a little silly - any battle could be used to explore what this movie is actually exploring. It is slightly unfortunate that because Dunkirk is not well-known at all, any more, the movie will be looked at as telling the "story" of Dunkirk, when it actually does only some of that, and is quite beside the points being made. And with the exception of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, and perhaps Market-Garden, no battle of WWII is known by the public any more, really. It strikes me as a bit of a shame that Nolan picked this battle, with it's implications for relations among Allies, etc., to explore what he explores in the script, rather than some more anonymous battle. Perhaps Dieppe would have worked just the same, though he would not have been able to work a civilian angle in to that one.

warspite1

The nationalistic pissing match seems never far away sadly....

...but as for what the film is about and why Nolan chose Dunkirk, having heard some of Nolan's interviews about the film, it is clear he picked Dunkirk because "it is of the great human stories of all time" and furthermore "hasn’t been addressed in modern cinema". Therefore its not the case that he should have picked another battle. He wanted to tell this story. Fair play to him because he got the backing of Warner Bros - and as he says, he needed such backing because the logistics (and thus the budget) meant the film was not going to be shot without the resources only a major studio could provide. He got their backing despite their being no US involvement, despite the story not being well known in the US. I think he's done a great job.

As for implications amongst Allies, sadly, can you name a famous battle that hasn't got something for someone to come over all unnecessary over? [8|] As said previously, there will always be some professional umbrage taker waiting to be offended.....

[Orm]

Have you guys noticed that Germans seldom seems insulted?

Maybe I just been blind and didn't notice it.

[brian brian]

Yeah, I know he wanted to tell the story of Dunkirk specifically. He may have started out on that path, but I don't think he stayed on it, and then achieved something far greater than the story of this battle. He wrote the script, by himself - and that script leads you to thinking about much more. His technique of anonymous characters (one never learns the names of many major characters) put me towards thinking that the specifics of the battle don't matter. The motivations of every character's actions and the costs and implications of their decisions are the thinking matter here, and much of that easily uncouples from the specifics of the battle. With no over-view, scenes from Home, politics, or generals, the movie is much more an exploration of the individual experience of war. He could have set in Korea, Afghanistan, anywhere. The grand scheme of the battle is barely mentioned until the very end, and you almost forget all about it, just as the participants do, as they deal with events as they un-fold in front of them, not meta-narratives about this country or that country or the given battle at hand. For critics to miss that just points out how this is a departure from traditional war movies quite a fair bit.

So as for the French, their portion of the story is handled clearly, in my opinion, though at a bare minimum. They hold the perimeter, they explicitly (on-camera) get refused first call on the ships, and then eventually the Royal Navy continues the operation to evacuate them later, as a second priority. It shows the cold calculation of the British decision and in no way glosses over it. If anything, a major French character quite highlights the terrible reality of it all - and the movie is about stark reality in every way. To get into the French aspect of the battle would require a different movie altogether, with scenes back at HQ with a big map and those little pins with flags stuck all over it and staff officers wringing their hands over the bad news, and a news bulletin on the radio heard by civilians, etc., that we have seen in all the other "The Story of ....." war movies ever made.

The only German characters in the movie are an He-111 and a few Me-109s. Just a few seconds of screen time for a couple actual soldiers.



I think there may have been an interesting cameo from Michael Caine, in one of the RAF portions of the film.

[warspite1]

Just to be clear though - in case anyone gets the wrong impression from your post - the French were not 'left until the end'. Yes, imo, Nolan was right, in fairness, to show the French being refused access at one point early in the process, but it was most certainly not the case that the French were all left until the end (clearly those guarding the escape route for others being an exception).

Yes Michael Caine was the ground controller [:)]

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,

Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would say there is an existential terror question in the first few minutes that few would notice, save military hardware buffs - if you see a Stuka diving toward you, and you don't have a foxhole ready, do you run towards the Stuka, or away from it?

Run towards it in theory. In practice, it would be very difficult to tamp down the terror and rush towards a diving Stuka.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,

Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.

warspite1

Yes - the wonderfully understated Michael Kitchen - a superb TV series [&o].

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I watched it here in Paris on iMax 70mm, and I found it amazing.

I won't spoil,

Oh come one ... how does it end. [:D]

By the way, is anyone familiar with the BBC series "Foyle's War". He's a chief detective and it's set during WW-2. His son has just graduate college and joined the RAF. The series starts in 1939 before Germany invaded Poland and ends in 1948 or 1949 at the start of the Cold War. There's is an episode that covers the evacuation at Dunkirk though from the perspective of the Brit's at home. I really enjoyed the series. It's a "who done it" type detective series.

warspite1

Yes - the wonderfully understated Michael Kitchen - a superb TV series [&o].

There's even a reference to Norway. Foyle is a DCI. His Sargent is a man who lost a leg at Trondheim as was discharged from the British army. His driver is provided by the women's mechanize corps, or something like that. She is the daughter of a Victor. She also has an uncle that's a Victor. Foyle can't drive and has to rely on Sam, short for Samantha, to drive him around.

[brian brian]

well, I used the phrase 'at the end' in reference to evacuating the French, because it is a subject right at the very end of the movie in a short, nicely done scene


I might well go see it again in a couple weeks, I think. There will be many key things to watch for on a second go.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

well, I used the phrase 'at the end' in reference to evacuating the French, because it is a subject right at the very end of the movie in a short, nicely done scene


I might well go see it again in a couple weeks, I think. There will be many key things to watch for on a second go.

warspite1

Yes, fine, I wasn't criticising you, I just wanted to make the position clear because there is sadly too much ignorance of the true position as it is, without fuel being added to the fire because of the way something is written (not because the you didn't know what you're talking about).